9911796707
TMI Blog1930 (9) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Courts below have rejected the plaints in these cases under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code, on the ground that the notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, was not given to the 1st defendant in the manner required by that section. The only question now arising for consideration is, whether the view taken by the Courts below is correct. 2. The village in which the suit inams are situate belonged to the 1st plaintiff. It' is admitted in the plaint that the 1st plaintiff has sold the suit village to the 2nd plaintiff and under the contract of sale the 2nd defendant has been put in possession of the village also. The plaint seeks for a declaration of the right set forth therein in favour of both the plaintiffs and the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose decisions, but in view of the latest pronouncement by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case Bhagchand Dagadusa v. Secretary of State for India (1927) L.R. 54 IndAp 338 : I.L.R. 51 B. 725 : 53 M.L.J. 81 (P.C.) it seems to me that the dictum so clearly laid down by the Privy Council will have to be followed in deciding a question of this kind. At page 747, their Lordships have observed thus : The Act, albcit a Procedure Code, must be read in accordance with the natural meaning of its words. Section 80 is express, explicit and man datory, and it admits of no implications or exceptions. 3. Later on, their Lordships further state thus : To argue, as the appellants did that the plaintiffs had a right urgently calling for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave to find against the maintainability of the present suits on the ground that the notice as required by Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, was not given. 5. It is argued by the learned Advocate for the appellants that even if a strict interpretation of Section 80 is made, the plaint, as a whole, should not be rejected, but only so far as the 2nd plaintiff is concerned. If it is a case of rejection of the plaint owing to non-compliance with Section 80, it is not clear how there can be a partial rejection of the plaint in respect of a portion of the claim or as regards some of the parties. A similar question was considered by the Allahabad High Court in the case reported in Raghubans Puri v. Jyofis Swarupa I.L.R. (1907) A. 325. Referring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o resume the same. That being so, their claim to recover possession of these lands from the other defendants should fall to the ground, for the simple reason that they have no right to resume these inams. In this connection I may also refer to an observation made by the Privy Council in the said Bhagchand Dagadusa v. Secretary of State for India (1927) L.R. 54 IndAp 338 : I.L.R. 51 B. 725 : 53 M.L.J. 81 (P.C.). It was contended in that case, that even if the non-compliance with Section 80 defeated the action as against the Secretary of State, it could be proceeded with as against the other defendant. To meet this argument, their Lordships have observed thus: Not only has the suit been throughout a joint proceeding against the officials ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
